|
|
|
|
 |
April 11th, 2001, 06:55 PM
|
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Randallstown, Maryland, USA
Posts: 779
Thanks: 8
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Should large mines be counted as three mines for sweepers?
It is kind of unfair to use mines against. against a human though it is a different story.
I think that no one component should be 100% effective against mines. That is one of the beauties of this game, there are no guarantees.
|
April 11th, 2001, 10:03 PM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 806
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Should large mines be counted as three mines for sweepers?
Can anyone verify rdouglass's assertion that organic armor III is totally impervious to all mines?
If that's true, then I agree with him -- that's unbalancing.
[This message has been edited by dmm (edited 11 April 2001).]
__________________
Give me a scenario editor, or give me death! Pretty please???
|
April 11th, 2001, 11:23 PM
|
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Irving,tx,usa
Posts: 123
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Should large mines be counted as three mines for sweepers?
I did a little testing. Armors that have a greater strength then mines warhead are not hurt by them. This includes Org arm II and scattering armors.
I do not think there are current armors that are greater than 200 resistance so warheads II and III will damage ships with 'heavy' armors
|
April 11th, 2001, 11:38 PM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 215
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Should large mines be counted as three mines for sweepers?
Again a suggestion!
Make some more levels in mines and include an armour skipping component. Thus removing the Organic Armour III problem.
That way the other components can stay the same.
|
April 12th, 2001, 03:58 AM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posts: 3,070
Thanks: 13
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
|
|
Re: Should large mines be counted as three mines for sweepers?
ISTR another thread that suggested putting armor-skipping/anti-weapon/antiengine/etc. components on mines. They'd be "one-shot" weapons like nuclear-pumped lasers would be. Has anybody tried to mod components like this?
------------------
Cap'n Q
__________________
Cap'n Q
"Good morning, Pooh Bear," said Eeyore gloomily. "If it is a good morning," he said. "Which I doubt," said he.
|
April 12th, 2001, 04:24 AM
|
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Eldersburg, Maryland, USA
Posts: 410
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Should large mines be counted as three mines for sweepers?
If you want to defend against Organic armor with mines just put larger warheads on them. A medium warhead does 200 points of damage, enough to destroy one organic armor component. IIRC once an organic armor component is destroyed it does not regenerate. Takes larger mines to stop them but it can be done.
|
April 12th, 2001, 04:38 AM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 215
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Should large mines be counted as three mines for sweepers?
I have put anti-engine on a minehead it seem to work!
Can't see why the components would not work, except as pointed out during those threads, the mines will keep going off if there is an enemy ship in the square. So if you load um up with anti-engine/ anti-weapon they will all go off as the ship is still alive.
But they would make for excellant bobby-traps and also for those empire who use boarding parties!!! No engines- No supplies before fight- no shields/ weapons
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|
